3 ms·
That's nonsense. Seizing property against somebody's will is an initiation of force and violence to deprive somebody of rightful ownership of property. That's f
by muninn_ 9y ago
That's nonsense. Seizing property against somebody's will is an initiation of force and violence to deprive somebody of rightful ownership of property. That's far different than a home owners association or a neighborhood ordinance. Now you could go in and vote that ordinance out, but aside from that your analogy here is not good at all.
And towns do set rules all the time. People get together, vote in legislators, and set rules. For example, building height restriction. I don't understand what your problem is here.
- eli_gottlieb 9y ago>That's nonsense. Seizing property against somebody's will is an initiation of force and violence to deprive somebody of rightful ownership of property. Nobody cares about your Ayn Rand pablum anymore. Argue on morals that have any grounding at all in the real world.
- muninn_ 9y ago> Nobody cares about your Ayn Rand pablum anymore. Argue on morals that have any grounding at all in the real world. Who said anything about Ayn Rand? Are you unfamiliar with political philosophy? Have you read Robert Nozick for example? I find it curious that you're using Ayn Rand here. But with that aside, I am in fact arguing morals that have grounding in the real world. If you're unable to understand how force is abstracted then I can explain it for you, but you have to be willing to be educated on the subject. The analogy presented was incredibly poor, one is seizing property, the other is a normal function of a liberal democracy.